So Gamma International is now using trademarks that are not theirs in addition to continuing to not care that their software is being used by oppressive regimes to spy on, and attack, their citizens. Stay class Gamma International.

This is bad. I stopped using FF a while ago because I wanted complete Gmail integration in Ubuntu and I couldn't get that without Chrome. Regardless, I think this has the potential to sink the brand if enough people find out about this. They are underdogs in a very competitive market.

This is bad. I stopped using FF a while ago because I wanted complete Gmail integration in Ubuntu and I couldn't get that without Chrome. Regardless, I think this has the potential to sink the brand if enough people find out about this. They are underdogs in a very competitive market.

You seemed to have completely missed the point of the article? Either you refer to FF's brand, which I don't see how it is damaged, or to FinFisher, who I doubt gives a damn.

Other than that, I'm still trying to cool down from yesterday's article "Feds want to expand wiretap law from ISPs to Google, Facebook". When the temperature of my outrage drops below boiling point I'll post something coherent.

So Gamma International is now using trademarks that are not theirs in addition to continuing to not care that their software is being used by oppressive regimes to spy on, and attack, their citizens. Stay class Gamma International.

This sounds like a easy to win case if Mozilla sues Gamma in UK court, even if Mozilla doesn't have their trademark registered in UK. Hopefully they won't fill the lawsuit in US, because Gamma reply will be something like ROFL HAHAHA or Gamma will simply ignore it.

The properties window of the fake application is a dead give away. Only people who don't pay attention to what they are trying to install would fall for this type of thing so whats the big deal?

The screenshot in the article? It's a really bad quality picture, but the details are identical (except for file size and date modified). It's legitimately signed (not using Mozilla's key, but still legitimately signed). The only difference is the filename and icon, which I'd imagine are normally correct.

This is bad. I stopped using FF a while ago because I wanted complete Gmail integration in Ubuntu and I couldn't get that without Chrome. Regardless, I think this has the potential to sink the brand if enough people find out about this. They are underdogs in a very competitive market.

Posing as a trusted program from a trusted provider is a trick that is almost as old as malware. The difference here is that Gamma, unlike older and wiser tricksters, has a public face - and that will be their undoing, temporarily. Of course, they can always take their wares to the grey and black markets, since they obviously have an existing customer base, so I don't see Mozilla really succeeding at anything but slapping that public face. The world will forget that pretty quickly.

This is bad. I stopped using FF a while ago because I wanted complete Gmail integration in Ubuntu and I couldn't get that without Chrome. Regardless, I think this has the potential to sink the brand if enough people find out about this. They are underdogs in a very competitive market.

Posing as a trusted program from a trusted provider is a trick that is almost as old as malware. The difference here is that Gamma, unlike older and wiser tricksters, has a public face - and that will be their undoing, temporarily. Of course, they can always take their wares to the grey and black markets, since they obviously have an existing customer base, so I don't see Mozilla really succeeding at anything but slapping that public face. The world will forget that pretty quickly.

I'm not sure if having a public face shamed is that big of a deal if your customers are oppressive governments willing to spy on their own citizens.

This is bad. I stopped using FF a while ago because I wanted complete Gmail integration in Ubuntu and I couldn't get that without Chrome. Regardless, I think this has the potential to sink the brand if enough people find out about this. They are underdogs in a very competitive market.

You seemed to have completely missed the point of the article? Either you refer to FF's brand, which I don't see how it is damaged, or to FinFisher, who I doubt gives a damn.

What are you talking about? The article says that their spyware spoofs Firefox. If people find out they'll worry that their FF is actually the spyware spoof. That's how it affects the brand.

The properties window of the fake application is a dead give away. Only people who don't pay attention to what they are trying to install would fall for this type of thing so whats the big deal?

The screenshot in the article? It's a really bad quality picture, but the details are identical (except for file size and date modified). It's legitimately signed (not using Mozilla's key, but still legitimately signed). The only difference is the filename and icon, which I'd imagine are normally correct.

Exactly, there does not appear to be any simple way to tell. If there were I'd think some users would eventually notice. I did note that the FinFisher binary is about 100k smaller however, wonder what they left out? Probably the security features and warnings.

So that leaves the question, will this be flagged by anti-virus or anti-spyware scans? If not, why not?

Note, I always download FF from Mozilla, but they are not the top google entry when you google firefox, I've always wondered what you would download from those other sites. Maybe not the FF that Mozilla wrote.

This is bad. I stopped using FF a while ago because I wanted complete Gmail integration in Ubuntu and I couldn't get that without Chrome. Regardless, I think this has the potential to sink the brand if enough people find out about this. They are underdogs in a very competitive market.

So Gamma International is now using trademarks that are not theirs in addition to continuing to not care that their software is being used by oppressive regimes to spy on, and attack, their citizens. Stay class Gamma International.

This sounds like a easy to win case if Mozilla sues Gamma in UK court, even if Mozilla doesn't have their trademark registered in UK. Hopefully they won't fill the lawsuit in US, because Gamma reply will be something like ROFL HAHAHA or Gamma will simply ignore it.

For what it's worth, I had trouble moving past the article pic. That said, I've nothing of substance to contribute, sorry.

I don't know which I like better, furries or goth girls. They're just so cute and dorky.

What makes you think she's goth? I hope not because tattoos, dark clothes, funny make up, funny hair colors, nose/lip/tongue/etc rings, are all things that really turn me off. Different strokes I guess... :-\

"Users became suspicious it wasn't really Firefox when their browser RAM usage was well below 2GB"

Due to high memory usage on a few machines lately I've started running Windows Process Explorer and while FF is a heavy hitter, v20.0.1 rarely exceeds 350K, right now it's 250k. Of course, I don't keep so many tabs open that you can't read what they are and I only open 1 instance of FF, but unless you leave it running for months at a time, I don't expect memory usage this high. YMMV of course. Maybe if you play a lot of videos they get cached in memory, I don't know.

For what it's worth, I had trouble moving past the article pic. That said, I've nothing of substance to contribute, sorry.

I don't know which I like better, furries or goth girls. They're just so cute and dorky.

What makes you think she's goth? I hope not because tattoos, dark clothes, funny make up, funny hair colors, nose/lip/tongue/etc rings, are all things that really turn me off. Different strokes I guess... :-\

He was referring to his own preferences. The picture is a "furry" (more like a cosplay, but whatever) and his other preference, not shown, is goth.

Note, I always download FF from Mozilla, but they are not the top google entry when you google firefox, I've always wondered what you would download from those other sites. Maybe not the FF that Mozilla wrote.

Those are ads and are clearly (-ish) labeled as such. Mozilla is the first "real" result.

So Gamma International is now using trademarks that are not theirs in addition to continuing to not care that their software is being used by oppressive regimes to spy on, and attack, their citizens. Stay class Gamma International.

This sounds like a easy to win case if Mozilla sues Gamma in UK court, even if Mozilla doesn't have their trademark registered in UK. Hopefully they won't fill the lawsuit in US, because Gamma reply will be something like ROFL HAHAHA or Gamma will simply ignore it.

"Users became suspicious it wasn't really Firefox when their browser RAM usage was well below 2GB"

Due to high memory usage on a few machines lately I've started running Windows Process Explorer and while FF is a heavy hitter, v20.0.1 rarely exceeds 350K, right now it's 250k. Of course, I don't keep so many tabs open that you can't read what they are and I only open 1 instance of FF, but unless you leave it running for months at a time, I don't expect memory usage this high. YMMV of course. Maybe if you play a lot of videos they get cached in memory, I don't know.

It's a common joke based on Firefox's historically heavy memory usage.

This is bad. I stopped using FF a while ago because I wanted complete Gmail integration in Ubuntu and I couldn't get that without Chrome. Regardless, I think this has the potential to sink the brand if enough people find out about this. They are underdogs in a very competitive market.

You seemed to have completely missed the point of the article? Either you refer to FF's brand, which I don't see how it is damaged, or to FinFisher, who I doubt gives a damn.

What are you talking about? The article says that their spyware spoofs Firefox. If people find out they'll worry that their FF is actually the spyware spoof. That's how it affects the brand.